10,132
edits
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/439: Difference between revisions
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/439 (view source)
Revision as of 07:48, 16 April 2021
, 16 April 2021Added template.
m (Fixed typo.) |
m (Added template.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
At any rate each time I make a cliché or a wild speculation it is the hint that I am going to carry it further. Long ago in these notes I said society is one, man is two (because two implies in its movement from one that there is an infinity of experience present in the act, thought, event, etc.) So, over the weekend, I realized through argument and thought that what my idea of give and take suffered from was what I was using it as a ‘One’. (A ‘won’—a victory over knowledge.) But it is really a two. (A ’to’—succession, a progression forward.) | At any rate each time I make a cliché or a wild speculation it is the hint that I am going to carry it further. Long ago in these notes I said society is one, man is two (because two implies in its movement from one that there is an infinity of experience present in the act, thought, event, etc.) So, over the weekend, I realized through argument and thought that what my idea of give and take suffered from was what I was using it as a ‘One’. (A ‘won’—a victory over knowledge.) But it is really a two. (A ’to’—succession, a progression forward.) | ||
So I wrote that wrestlers are Givers and boxers Takers. But that is only half-right. The wrestler is a Giver-Taker—the boxer a Taker-Giver. To wit, the wrestler at the top of his personality—out of the ring, that is off the mat (man at)—always gives, has a breezy aggressive affectionate personality, but in the ring he takes the facsimile, the caricature of punishment. So, wrestling which is phony and a exhibition is actually a play, a drama, a caricature of human advance. The Actor (the grappler) Takes in order to be able to Give. With the boxer we have the reverse. The boxer is in the ring (Ring—the r of ing, the rage of passivity, the rage which be giving enables one to return to passivity.) He is all action, he is honest—that is, boxers hate the phony fight because it removes them from the possibility of giving dignity to their passive state. The wrestler “fakes” and enjoys his faking enormously because it enables him to take—which he has no real desire to do, no real ''surface'' desire. | So I wrote that wrestlers are Givers and boxers Takers. But that is only half-right. The wrestler is a Giver-Taker—the boxer a Taker-Giver. To wit, the wrestler at the top of his personality—out of the ring, that is off the mat (man at)—always gives, has a breezy aggressive affectionate personality, but in the ring he takes the facsimile, the caricature of punishment. So, wrestling which is phony and a exhibition is actually a play, a drama, a caricature of human advance. The Actor (the grappler) Takes in order to be able to Give. With the boxer we have the reverse. The boxer is in the ring (Ring—the r of ing, the rage of passivity, the rage which be giving enables one to return to passivity.) He is all action, he is honest—that is, boxers hate the phony fight because it removes them from the possibility of giving dignity to their passive state. The wrestler “fakes” and enjoys his faking enormously because it enables him to take—which he has no real desire to do, no real ''surface'' desire. {{LJ:AP}}—to be explained later—and taking, the wrestle is able to return to his state of giving. | ||
So the give implies the take, and the take the give. I who used to be such a giver, such a bully, gave in order to take. The thing I always hated in myself, the loyalty I always felt toward the person I was talking to as opposed to the person, nominally much dearer, who was away from me, was actually an expression, a bastardized tortured expression of my need to take. Only be giving equality and deep friendship to the person with me, feeling a union, a communion, was I able to take. Because in “feeling” their reaction to my arguments, their “mirror”—I was able to locate myself, to Take, to comprehend more of the nature of reality. | So the give implies the take, and the take the give. I who used to be such a giver, such a bully, gave in order to take. The thing I always hated in myself, the loyalty I always felt toward the person I was talking to as opposed to the person, nominally much dearer, who was away from me, was actually an expression, a bastardized tortured expression of my need to take. Only be giving equality and deep friendship to the person with me, feeling a union, a communion, was I able to take. Because in “feeling” their reaction to my arguments, their “mirror”—I was able to locate myself, to Take, to comprehend more of the nature of reality. | ||